tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN June 7, 2018 12:00am-1:01am PDT
daniels's attorney and keith davidson. that as rudy giuliani takes a cheap shot at daniels. claiming she has no credibility because she's a porn star. her attorney michael avenatti is firing back, and he joins me now. you say that stormy's former lawyer, keith davidson, colluded with michael cohen to manipulate stormy by getting her to appear on shawn hannity and falsely denying the affair with donald trump. and this is text messages between them and you that you say are proof here. this is what cohen says. he says i have her attentively scheduled for hannity tonight. call me after your trial. and davidson says, she cannot. don't today. she is flying -- she cannot do it today, she is flying to l.a. tomorrow. i'm trying to get her to commit for tomorrow. and cohen says it's really important. why? davidson says, still trying. cohen, this is no good, we need her by doing tomorrow, just
create another news cycle instead of putting an end to this one. some of it is not grammatically correct here. and the story is dying, and don't think it's smart for her to do any interviews. let her do her thing but no interviews with anyone. davidson says 100%, and then he says thanks, pal. that's what cohen says. this is the same day that in touch magazine published the excerpts where stormy daniels gave details about the affair. how does this prove they were colluding with each other against your client? >> well, don, i think the text messages attached to the complaint make the clear these two guys were in bed with one another, no pun intended. i mean mr. davidson was supposed to be adverse to mr. cohen, supposed to be representing my client. they had no reason to be communicating whatsoever at this point.
the agreement was supposedly completed prior, although as you know it's our claim that it wasn't. that it wasn't a valid agreement. but mr. davidson had no business communicating with mr. cohen in this regard, and he certainly didn't have any business communicating with mr. cohen in late february or early march when we allege he tipped off mr. cohen about my new involvement representing ms. daniels and about the fact we were getting ready to file a lawsuit. >> but clearly cohen is trying to pressure daniels -- stormy daniels to get her to deny the affair but stormy had already signed a nondisclosure agreement so why wouldn't cohen push for that? why is there wrongdoing? >> no, don, there's clear wrongdoing. first of all, michael cohen has previously claimed that he thought my client at all times was a liar and he just paid her $130,000 to go away. how do you square that
explanation with him then attempting to get her to go on the shawn hannity show on the 17th of january? and if you look at the text messages it's clear michael cohen is begging to put her on shawn hannity. %-p between mr. davidson and mr. cohen. and then, of course, the last message is one you referenced where mr. cohen says that the wise men have concluded that it's better if she doesn't go on the show. so how can michael cohen and the president now claim that at all times they thought she was a liar, that they didn't have anything to do with her. michael cohen paid her $130,000 just to go away and the president knew nothing about it. you cannot square these text messages with it lies that have been told to the american people including on air force one. >> just hold the wise man thought for a moment. he said this is not unusual, lawyers communicate with each other all the time. you may not like it but there's
nothing illegal or nefarious about that. what do you say to that? >> dan doesn't known what he's talking about. this is not appropriate for lawyers to communicate in this way. after an agreement was put in place, allegedly, there was no reason for them to be communicating about putting her on the shawn hannity show. and what the explanation mr. davidson is communicating with michael cohen in late february and early march? what's his explanation for that. >> you'll have to ask him that, and i'll ask him if i see him, but the wise man comment there, are you saying -- didn't you say you believe one of the wise men is the president? >> yes, we have evidence that suggests one of the wise men referenced in that text message was, in fact, mr. trump. and i think it makes sense, don. michael cohen is not deciding unilaterally to put stormy daniels on shawn hannity.
stormy daniels who allegedly had a relationship with the president, do you honestly think -- does anyone really think that michael cohen who can barely add two plus two to equal four is making that decision on his own, to put stormy daniels on shawn hannity? nobody believes that. just like nobody believes michael cohen is unilaterally deciding he's going to meet with the first lady of the united states and talk about stormy daniels. >> what's your evidence? >> well, i'm not ready to disclose that, but if i'm wrong about it let michael cohen or mr. davidson or someone else come forward tonight and tell me that i'm wrong. they're not going to do that, just like we have yet to hear the denial from michael cohen and his lawyers that there are audio recordings between michael cohen and donald trump, which is what i stated a week or two weeks ago. they have yet to deny that because that's true as well. you know, don, i like my batting average thus far over the last three or four months.
i think i've been hitting from the plate. >> the president's attorney rudy giuliani spoke about that, your client. >> oh, very, very credible source. stormy the porn star -- you know every porn person can't be a star. but i would say that's about the same credibility as her lawyer who basically got thrown out of the case. i don't trust -- i don't believe stormy daniels. i don't believe her. sue me, stormy. i don't believe her. when you look at stormy daniels, i go donald trump -- >> let's just stick to -- >> look at his three wives. beautiful women, classy women, women of great substance. stormy daniels? so stormy, you want to bring a case let me cross examine you. because the business you were in
entitles you to no degree of your credibility given any weight. explain to me how she can be damaged? she has no reputation. if you're going to sell your body for money you just don't have a reputation. >> what's your response to that, michael? >> well, first of all my client was never a prostitute, which is what mr. giuliani was suggesting. but even if she was, don, these comments are piggish and they are disgusting and he should be embarrassed for himself. what he's suggesting is if a woman participates in pornography somehow they're not entitled to respect and somehow they're not entitled to believe in something they state. that somehow they've lost credibility. and, you know, don, i don't know the facts and the circumstances around this, but i know for a fact that at one point in time the first lady which when he came to the united states engaged in modeling and may have
engaged in some scantily clad photographs. there's nothing wrong with that. that doesn't mean she's not entitled to our respect, not entitled to credibility. no one would ever say that about mrs. trump because it would be outrageous. and yet somehow rudy giuliani believes my client isn't entitled to be believed because she was in the adult industry. it's disgusting. he's a pig. >> some would take offense at you for even bringing the first lady up in that respect, that you're besmirching her credibility as well by bringing her up. >> absolutely not. i'm absolutely not saying that, in fact if you listened to what i just said i'm saying the opposite. what i'm saying that all women regardless of their profession deserve respect, and their credibility has nothing to do with whether they were a model, whether in the pornography or anything of that nature.
that has no baring on credibility. to suggest otherwise is a disgrace. >> this is statement coming from michael cohen's attorney. this is attacking your credibility as well. the new lawsuit filed by stephanie clifford aka, stormy daniels has no merit whatsoever as to my client. we look forward to defeating the lawsuit in court. what do you say to that? >> instead of issuing the statement they should send over the rest of the text messages me and my client are entitled to, and they ought to send over the recordings where mr. cohen disclosed attorney-client information and while they're at it they should disclose the recordings between mr. trump to the american people. >> mr. davidson said by filing this lawsuit you have given up --
attorney client prif privilege between hem and stormy daniels. >> mr. davidson demonstrates with each passing hour he doesn't know the law. we were well aware what the law in california was before we filed the case. it's not a blanket way of the attorney-client privilege. we actually sent mr. davidson's lawyers a three-page letter this afternoon educating them on the law in california. hopefully they're squared away tonight. >> michael avenatti, i appreciate it. when we come back as president trump ramps up his war with the nfl over protests of police treatment of african-americans, this may be a case in point right here. we're going to tell you how and why this scene you're watching right here on surveillance video turned incredibly violent in a matter of moments. melatonin is the body's own sleep ingredient.
has been ramping up his war with nfl players who have taken a knee during the national anthem. so the president using the issue as a wedge to divide the country. regardless of the president's manipulation of this issue for political purposes, the fact is not a single one of the eagles took a knee last season, not one of them. but players who have knelt in the past say they've done it to call attention to racial injustice especially at the hands of police officers. and tonight what may be a case in point here. i want you to watch this closely. four officers in mesa, arizona, placed on leave after a video caught them punching an unarmed man. again, a warning, the video is violent. some may find it disturbing. cnn's nick white has the story. >> reporter: robert johnson leaning against that wall says he was just tagging along with his buddy who was trying to collect a bag from an ex-girlfriend. so how did it go from talking on his phone to this? >> sit down.
>> sit your [ bleep ] down. >> reporter: multiple punches and knees according to cops because he refuses an order to sit down. officers had patted him down moments before. they knew he was unarmed before hitting him over and over. >> but they kept on and kept on, and they kept on assaulting him. they didn't stop until he was knocked out. >> the use of force is troubling, and when they approach him they try to force him down, and when he resists that tension the officers strike him several times to get him to comply. >> reporter: the local officers union and the mesa police association tells cnn that johnson was not compliant and physically resistted what we feel was a lawful detention. >> they hog tie him. they drag him to the elevator door.
>> reporter: johnson with no criminal record we could find wasn't actually a suspect in this operation. the suspect was his friend there on the ground, eric rayes. his ex-girlfriend had called 911 after rayes had allegedly tried to break into her apartment. cnn was unable to reach him for comment. johnson was charged with disorderly conduct and hindering a prosecution. he pleaded not guilty. >> and the reason they did that to justify their actions for beating him up. >> reporter: late today police released the officer's body cam video, but the incident happened on may 23rd, and the investigation only began may 30th when an alarmed citizen brought the security camera video from the apartment complex to the chief who has now a changed policy regarding punches to the head and face. >> henceforth any strikes are only authorized in situations
where a person is actively fighting with us, actively taking a swing at us. >> reporter: the three unnamed officers who struck johnson and a sergeant are now on paid leave. the chief who heard the audio on the body cam said this -- >> certainly at first glance it looks like a mistake, and it doesn't look right. and it's our job, my job to collectively investigate and find the answers to this. >> reporter: johnson's lawyer wants these officers charged and plans to sue. >> he's physically hurt, emotionally hurt, and this is going to affect him for the rest of his life. >> reporter: cnn, mesa, arizona. >> thank you very much. let's bring in now cnn political commentators ben ferguson and a former new york city police detective. hello. disturbing video. mark, isn't this what nfl players wanted to bring attention to? >> exactly. while the president is making
this a distraction by suggesting players are protesting the flag or being unpatriotic, what they were actually trying to do is shine a spotlight on police terrorism, and this is disgusting and no excuse for it. that's what i love donald trump to speak out against, since he's using twitter all the time, speak out against this. >> what do you say? >> i think it's time for people to come together on this and find common ground. and i think everybody needs to take a step back for a moment and not make it so personal. initially i agree this was about police brutality. but the reality is the biggest day of protest was by nfl players against donald trump. it was after he spoke out against the players. it was not about police brutality. colin kaepernick has his own problems wearing communist t-shirts and wearing socks depicting police as pigs. that's a fact. >> dan, what are you talking about?
>> listen to what i'm saying, don. >> i listened to what you said -- >> kaepernick wore socks that depict cops as pigs. >> that is deflection. >> i'm talking about the reality -- >> we're talking about what the nfl players are saying to the country, to the world. they're telling you and the president and everyone why they want to take a knee. to draw attention to situations like this. and you can deflect with all those other things. and you have a right to do it -- >> it's part of the conversation. >> it's not part of the conversation now. can we be bigger than that, then? when you look at that video and both sides -- >> my point is both sides -- >> there is no both sides. first of all, the idea of saying don't take this personal, as a black person, as someone who's likely to be subject to this time of random unmerited violence i do take it personally.
yes, it's a very personal matter. no one would tell a jewish person not to take anti-semitism personally or a gay person to take -- >> mark, you do see one of the guys that's hitting the guy is african-american. you're talking about all police brutality. let's not make it about race. when his elbowed by one of the african-american police officers. >> that's not true. you can be a black officer and -- >> i don't care if it's a black officer or -- >> it's not racism when you have a black guy doing it. >> you're smarter than that. you can be co-opted by a system regardless of what race you are. >> but you're getting beaten by black people --
>> you think a white person would be beaten by an officer like that? >> there have been white people that have been beaten by police officers, don. >> where they at, though? >> bring me some video. >> you're saying no police brutality happens against anybody else other than people who are african-american that happens to be at the hands of an african-american. >> i want the actual police officer to respond. >> let me be clear, the issue here is black people are beaten and killed. we did not march and struggle to get beaten by black officers. we're disproportionately getting beaten. that's the racial component to this. >> if you want to fix police brutality it cannot be a race issue.
by a black guy who took his elbow and pounding him in the face. you can't blame white people for that. >> i never said a black person wasn't doing it. >> i'm talking about the reality of the situation, and you're trying to make it a racial issue when you have a police brutality issue in this situation. i agree with that. >> why are you pointing out the -- >> my point is police brutality has to be talked about with the issue of police brutality, and it can't always be turn "news today" a race issue when you're watching an african-american pounding another african-american. that's not a race issue when a black guy is beating a black guy. >> you can't be that uneducated. go ahead, tom. >> i can't be that uneducated, what does that mean?
>> let someone else talk. >> guys, i just want to yell at somebody. i wish i'd brought my police whistle. first think's first, the video that we saw is not pretty. the videos are never pretty, they never will be pretty. what i will ask people to do as we have done in the past, in some cases the gun has been jumped, no pun intended, we have to let the investigation play out. find out all the facts that occurred here to make sure if there is any wrongdoing that has occurred, which it seem like there could be in this case i have no problem with the cops being disciplined or fired if they have broken the procedure and not only the law in take too much force in this incident. i have no problem with that, okay? the other part of this is to
mark's point, studies do show what the rates are of the amount of african-americans and the violence between them and police. but also just one other thing i want to mention, too, is that the frame of this is that the guy was unarmed and that makes him not dangerous. that is baloney. many, many officers are killed every single year by unarmed men, black, white and green -- >> i want you guys to listen. this is an a interaction so we can continue the conversation. this is before it got violent. watch this. >> sit down. >> sit down. >> sit your [ bleep ] down. >> get in there. get his arms back. >> so, tom, you're making the point as you heard that, does that help you make your point there or -- i may be talking back to --
>> of course. the premise of this is that the gentleman was not listening to sit down, he's standing up. and this plays out in a lot of instances we've all been involved in where we have to talk about where's the responsibility of the people that the police are interacting with to listen to the lawful orders of the officer? if they're not listening to lawful orders of the officer, in this case whether he's supposed to be put under arrest and resisting or whatnot, resisting doesn't necessarily mean they're throwing punches at the officers. they're note listening to the lawful orders. >> the police chief admits the incident was wrong -- the police chief admits the incident was wrong even after having heard johnson's comments from the body cam audio. does that make a difference?
>> because again the level of force that i personally believe that was needed to get this person to ground, i believe looking at the video seems excessive to me. and that seems to be echoed by the police chief. now, the investigation from front to back is going to come to a final conclusion whether or not they did violate some department policy. >> the chief did say they're changing their tactics in use of force because of this. >> yes. which is fine. i've got no problem with that. again, i'm a firm believer in training, retraining and training all over again if you have to. if you have something that clearly does not fit -- because that also puts the officers at an disadvantage as well. if it's not clear to them what level of force they should have at any given incident that they're involved in. >> there's always an excuse. okay, we're going to take a break. we'll come back.
i'm a small business, but i have... big dreams... and big plans. so how do i make the efforts of 8 employees... feel like 50? how can i share new plans virtually? how can i download an e-file? virtual tours? zip-file? really big files? in seconds, not minutes... just like that. like everything... the answer is simple. i'll do what i've always done... dream more, dream faster, and above all... now, i'll dream gig. now more businesses, in more places, can afford to dream gig. comcast, building america's largest gig-speed network. all right, and we're back now. after the philadelphia eagles
practiced today the normally outspoken malcolm jenkins told not to talk to reporters and instead made his feelings known wii holding up signs. other signs highlighting the charitable works of players. so ben, you saw malcolm jenkins. are you listening? >> look, i think it was a great way to make a point, and a great way to make a point and maybe have the conversation come back where people can actually talk about things instead of it being about stunts of not showing up to the white house and then seven are going to show up. i'll say it at the very beginning and i'll say it again -- >> i think there was a report today that said it was only one that wanted to come. >> the bottom line is it was cleary done by the eagles to try to embarrass the president of united states of america. and i think he made the right decision by canceling. it was a missed opportunity by the same guy that's holding the signs up to go to the white house and with his teammates and have a dialogue with the united states of america.
you're not going to fix a problem if you're not willing to sit down with the most powerful man in the country. whether you like it or not he's the president. and you should have the time to talk to the president of the united states of america. >> he's ignored his chief of staff, but me might listen to -- >> i'm going to correct it when you say he never listen tuesday somebody. >> your argument is that the president has listened to somebody, kim kardashian. cool, if that's who he wants to listen to. >> ben, you have to let other people talk. i would spend the entire conversation correcting misinformation you give out. so let's just let other people talk. >> name one thing i said. >> please stop interrupting.
>> here's my point, ben, there are multiple ways to resist. one way to resist is to go to the white house and talk to the president. i think there's a legitimate argument the president hasn't been thoughtful to the black voices and the other way is to ignore. people weren't disrespecting the counters of the montgomery busboy county system, and finally there are many people in the last eight to 16 years who have told sitting u.s. presidents they shouldn't go to certain regimes, they shouldn't talk to certain people if they find them unresponsive, anti-democratic, violent, elitist et cetera. i'm saying donald trump is not worthy of the meeting. >> jenkins tweeted the second sign he held up. the second one had the number of people shot and killed by police this year.
notice the high percentage of them who were black male. as a former member of the nypd, i want to know why such a disproportionate number of black males here. >> that's a great question. i wish i could answer that distinctly. clearly the numbers show what they show. i would, again, judge each of those instances based on their merits and whether or not those officers acted within the confines of procedure and whether or not they acted within the confines of it law. and i think if i'm not mistaken all those incidents are not under review of any kind i'm aware of. so we have to, again, take each incident as based on the facts and incidents of merits as they stand. as far as standing for the flag and pledge of allegiance or national anthem, i'm of the train of thought that out of respect for the flag, out of respect for our serving military members and our veterans that it
is plight and respectful to stand. as far as the, you know, number of nfl players who decided to take a knee for them, that's their prerogative. that point of view is not going to necessarily stand with friends of mine on the right, and, you know, that's for the teams and nfl to decide. but they passed something recently they're going to fine the teams. so that's on them. if that is there way to mark's point of voicing a silent protest, then that's their first amendment right to do that. >> well, we'll see how this plays out moving forward here. i unfortunately have to end the conversation. again, as i said every night this is america. we have a choice. we don't have to be forced. there's no forced patriotism here. thank you all. appreciate it. when we come back, the president's testy call with justin trudeau got even worse when trump got his history very,
for tonight a cnn exclusive. sources saying president trump had a contentious phone call with canadian prime minister justin trudeau over tariffs on steel and aluminum. and trudeau pressed the president. and in response the president said to him, didn't you guys burn down the white house, inferring incorrectly by the way, to what happened during the war of 1812. let's bring in cnn economics advisor and max boothy, author of "the road not taken." gentlemen, good evening. max, of course, that was the british. it is a basic knowledge of u.s. history, something the president should have, right? >> well, you would think so. but there are a lot of things the president doesn't know including the fact that the nation of canada did not actually exist in 1812 when the white house was burnt.
>> i didn't expect to be that short and concise. even you laughed at that. what do you think? >> he got confused. it was obviously the british who burned down the white house in 1812. but -- it was a gaff. >> i was going to say, how does that justify tariffs anyway, especially considering that people say the united states is -- >> i think trump is making a big mistake. canada is our closest ally in the world, by far. >> our military partner. >> in every way. so it makes no sense to be picking a fight with canada or mexico, for that matter. look, you and i have talked about this. i'm in favor of getting tough with china because china is a problem. but you don't want to do that. you don't want to pick a fight with your allies. >> did we just hear steven moore said the administration did something wrong, the president. >> donald trump knew from the
very start i didn't agree with him on tariff, i'm a free trade guy. i respect the fact we'll respectfully disagree on that issue. i'm not going to change my positions and my principles because i favor donald trump. >> max, what did you want to say >> i think this is going to be a first, don, where steve and i end up agreeing with one another. the fact that donald trump is calling our closest allies threats to american national security, and i think that wrangles as much the fact he's imposing tariffs. the steel tariffs alone are going to cost 40,000 jobs alone. i watched on tv this past weekend the canadian prime minister and foreign minister and the sense of hurt in their voices was just palpable. today is the 74th anniversary of d-day when canadian and american troops landed side by side in normandy. we have fought with the
canadians for a century. to label them as a national security threat, just a sense of shock and anger in europe, not just in canada but same thing with the closest allies in europe. this is such a cockamamie thing to claim they are a threat to our national security. >> but "the washington post" reporting trump isn't happy about his upcoming trip to canada on friday. the president has vented about prime minister justin trudeau. he has mused about finding now ways to punish the northern state's neighbor in recent days frustrated with the country's retaliatory trade moves. he believes it's a distraction from the singapore trip. >> donald trump made a big point during the campaign. i think he called nafta the worst trade deal in history. again, i disagree with them on that, but this is something he
made a big deal on during the campaign. look, it's been 25 years. i think nafta's been a good thing. now, canada, in my opinion, max, does not get away scott free here. in the negotiations they're bringing up things like our right to work law here, issues that have nothing to do with the trade deal. >> donald trump is the big impediment to a deal here. and the latest from the white house they're voting an idea of giving up on nafta and negotiating separately with canada and mexico, which i think would be a huge failure of this so-called master negotiator, president trump. but, you know, to me the fascinating thing to watch in this upcoming g-7 summit in canada this weekend is the dynamics between trump and his fellow democratic leaders, i'm willing to bet he's going to have better dynamics with kim jong-un next week than he's going to have with his fellow
democrat leaders this weekend because the g-7 is now the g-6 versus one because the other six are against the united states because of these terrible tariffs. >> let me defend the president on this. i am for free trade as you know, max. but other countries in europe are charging the united states versus what we impose on them, and their tariffs are two to three times higher than ours are. and trump said i want to use these to get to free trade. if we can get that outcome, what is with that? do we want the europeans to be imposing high tariffs on american products? >> there's no evidence whatsoever donald trump is successful at negotiating new deals. he's broken a lot of deals. he's had no success in negotiating new deals. the nafta negotiations are stalled. it's not clear what he wants from the europeans.
he's fixated on the idea any kind of trade deficit is a ripoff on the united states. which as an economist you know that's not true. but donald trump is obsessed with this, which just goes to show he doesn't understand -- >> all right, to be continued. i've got to end this. thank you both. we'll see you next time. listen, i do have some breaking news i need to report to you right now and it's about the battle over the so-called informant in the trump campaign, a claim that has been debunked including by senior republicans who attended the recent briefing with the justice department. here's what a senior justice department official says tonight, that their department will be extending an offer to the gang of 8:00 to review certain documents that were made available during his prior briefing on may 24th to the same group, as well as a briefing on certain questions specifically raised by the speaker and other members. the official says the briefing
the first lady melania trump appearing in public today for the first time in since may 10th. she was hospitalized for a kidney procedure last month. joining me now to discuss, the author of "first in line, president's, vice presidents and the pursuit of power." congratulations on the book. welcome, by the way. the president tweeted this today about the first lady's absence. he says the fake news media has been so unfair and vicious to my wife. hay reported everything from near death to face-lift to left the white house and me for new york or virginia to abuse. all fake. she is doing really well. cnn reported that she just hadn't been seen in public for so many days. that's different from being obsessed. and she is the first lady of the united states that had just gone through a procedure. people want to know.
>> i think it's a strange idea. one thing that's interesting about her staff is that they are so protective. i mean, i've covered michelle obama, and of course there's always this fierce protected east wing, but this is nothing like i've seen before. and i think it's because of melania trump. i think they would like to give us more. her spokeswoman told me thaw that melania instructed her to get back to all the people who had written her notes during her recovery, but she doesn't go beyond that. it is feeding the flames because we're all just wonder what is he doing. >> i think it's normal to wonder if the first lady is okay especially after she has had a medical procedure. >> yes, especially given what we know, what was going on with stormy daniels and they're not holding hands. i mean there aren't even tea leaves to read, it's so obvious. >> this is just practical. the first lady had a medical procedure, we did not see her after that, what is going on? very simple and straightforward.
and we would be derelict in our duties if we didn't ask. and then the president welcomed her back. watch this. >> we have to start with our great first lady, melania. thank you, melania. she's doing great. she went through a little rough patch, but she's doing great, and we're very proud of her. she's done a fantastic job as first lady. the people love you. the people of our country love you, so thank you, honey. >> he said she went through a little rough patch. except the folks at walter reed, the spokesperson told cnn she had a kidney procedure, it was successful, there were no complications. i'm wondering if the president is contradicting them or is he saying there's something that was more serious. >> listen, the medical questions are hard to get into because it is so personal. but even michelle obama jokes about it being a prison.
it's a difficult job, and so i wouldn't be surprised if melania trump wanted time in the hospital to have privacy, quite frankly. you know, it's not an easy job. in this white house it's especially difficult. she didn't want this position. but i will say she's savvier than people think. she reads what's written, a lot of what's written about her and her family. and in my reporting for the book it turns out she was actually instrumental in picking out vice president pence, and she said we need a clean vp. >> what did she want in a vice president? >> someone who didn't have all the baggage her husband had. she was very smart in ways her husband wasn't. he had michael flynn on his list of vice presidential possibilities. it terrified his lead lawyer. the baggage michael flynn had was obvious. but she believed that someone like chris christie or newt gingrich came with too much.
hi had a surplus of that already. >> there was already enough drama around him. he didn't need more. we saw vice president pence at the fema event as well. in your book you write about their relationship, right, the relationship with the president and the vice president. what is it like? >> well, vice president pence told his older brother, greg, that trump remind him of their father. and i think that was really interesting. their father was a korean war vet, very tough disciplinary. trump does all the talking in their meetings. pence never disagrees with him. they spend about three hours every day together, they talk every morning and night. but pence is on message in the white house. even when he's traveled abroad he's called the president late at night to go over speeches. i think there's a feeling of fear in the staff. not to upset the president.
>> i just wonder how the president feels he's like a father figure, like a dad. i don't know about that one. >> yeah, probably not. >> i think it's interesting you talk about the vice president also speaks with joe biden once a month. thank you for coming in. i appreciate it. thank you. the book, again, is "first in line, presidents, vice president and the pursuit of power." that is it for us tonight. thanks for watching. i'll see you right back here tomorrow. . . . . .
president trump thinks the upcomi upcoming g7 is a waste of time. now a testy phone call with the prime minister of canada is asking him if he knows history or made a bad joke. brokie breaking overnight r offers more documents on the confidential source. sit down. sit your [ bleep ] down. >> and police in arizona facing hardue